6lowpan at 66th IETF meeting WG -------------------------------- Slot: Tue, 2006-07-11 9:00 - 11:30 Room: 519b ================================= Notes taken by: Janico Greifenberg Behcet Sarikaya Minutes assembled by: Christian Peter Pii Schumacher ================================= (voice recordings were not used for these minutes, but should be available from http://www.ietf.org) Agenda: Segments: 1. 09:00 - Intro and agenda, Bormann (10) 2. 09:10 - Working Group Status, Mulligan (10) 3. 09:20 - Format Spec, Montenegro (30) 4. 09:50 - Low-power Mesh Networking, Mulligan (10+20) 5. 10:20 - Charter Discussion, Chairs (20) 6. 10:40 - New Work a. LOAD update, Kim b. Collaboration with MANET, Chakeres (Outline for each segment's minutes:) Document(s): I. Document presented during segment X. II. Document presented during segment X. ... Conversation: Conversation during document I. presentation Conversation during document II. presentation ... Segment 1. 09:00 - Intro and agenda, Bormann (10) Document(s): I. "Chairs' Slides" http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/06jul/slides/6lowpan-3.ppt Conversation No new information Segment 2. 09:10 - Working Group Status, Mulligan (10) Document(s): I. "Chairs' Slides" http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/06jul/slides/6lowpan-3.ppt Conversation: I. Slide 7-8 The WG is currently chartered to create a problem statement and a format document. The probem statement has already gone thru a last call but a few issues have been identified since. One issue will be mentioned during this session. The format document will be complete this month and moved to AD. These documents are the fundamental stuff needed before the WG can move to other (more interesing) topics. The documents need to be finished within 3 weeks and will subject to a WG last call until Jul 28th. Segment 3. 09:20 - Format Spec, Montenegro (30) Document(s): I. "Format Document Slides" http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/06jul/slides/6lowpan-0.ppt Conversation: I. Slide 2-6 Gabriel covered the lastest changes to the format document. Mapping space has now been reserved for multicast addresses (the usage of which is optional), and there is now an IANA considerations section to define unicast, multicast and reserved address spaces for 16-bit addresses. If an address is unicast one packet format is used. If an address is broadcast or multicast, the second packet format is used, which includes a sequence number. The question was raised why multicast is needed. The answer was that it can be used for optimization, but needs to be considered in routing, too. Gabriel isn't sure that this belongs in the base spec. Carsten said that using the address space for multicast should be in the base spec, but other details (including the actual forwarding) need to be specified later in a mesh routing document. The chairs stated that the WG can provide additional input for the document until the 28th of July, and that the problem statement will only be given to the IESG together with the format document. Segment 4. 09:50 - Low-power Mesh Networking, Mulligan (10+20) Document(s): I. "Low Power Mesh" http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/06jul/slides/6lowpan-2.ppt Conversation: I. Slide 2-5 Geoff gave a presentation to argue the case that although FFDs (fully functional devices, specified in IEEE802.15.4) previously were assumed to be mains powered, the 6lowpan WG may wish to soften this assumption to also support fully battery-operated networks. Wirelessly interconnected smoke detectors and tank level monitoring and sensor nets are applications which could require support for fully battery-operated networks, at least during certain parts of their life cycles. Geoff suggested the following changes to the problem statement document: - Add the word "may" to the statement about mains powered FFDs - Add paragraph about completely battery powered networks Geoff suggested to add the modifications and move both documents to IESG review. However it was determined that this change may have implications and that the issue should be discussed further on the mailing list, while still trying to finish the discussion before the end of the last call. Segment 5. 10:20 - Charter Discussion, Chairs (20) Document(s): I. "Charter Proposal" http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/06jul/slides/6lowpan-4.ppt Conversation: I. Slide 1-5 Christian had created a paragraph for each new charter item and Carsten gave a short introduction to each item after which he raised the question of who would be interested in working on these items. I. Slide 1 - "6lowpan Bootstrapping and 6lowpan IPv6 ND Optimizations" While not present, Samita Chakrabarti and Erik Nordmark have indicated interest to continue their work on this draft (they are quite active on the mailing list). Wassim Haddad asked if this document also covers security, more specifically SEND. He and others have done a draft on an optimized SEND but have no WG to send it to, as the original WG (SEND) no longer meets. The AD suggested that although a WG no longer meets, its mailing list is still active and the draft could be send there. An alternative is to get feedback about general interest on INT list. I. Slide 2 - "Problem Statement for Stateful Header Compression in 6lowpans" Approx. 4 people indicated interest in working on this item. There was brief discussion on the difference between stateless and stateful compression and the implications in a 6lowpan. Geoff used the occasion to make a brief statement that there is an IPR claim on stateLESS header compression (i.e., related to existing 6lowpan work) from his company which will be formally filed. I. Slide 3 - "Recommendations for 6lowpan Applications" Approx. 4 people indicated interest in working on this item. I. Slide 4 - "6lowpan Mesh Routing" Approx. 5 people indicated interest in working on this item. I. Slide 5 - "6lowpan Security Analysis" Approx. 4 people indicated interest in working on this item. I. Slide 1-5 Carsten believes that the work with the new charter items will proceed faster than the work with the existing milestones due to the fact that people already have worked much on topics similar to the new charter items. However the AD emphasized that the base specs must be ready before rechartering. Segment 6a. 10:40 - New Work - LOAD update, Kim Document(s): I. "Chairs' Slides" http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/06jul/slides/6lowpan-3.ppt Conversation: I. Slide 1 Kim gave an update of LOAD draft. LOAD uses LQI for identifying weak links, however Gabriel raised the issue that LQI is too unreliable to be used as a basis for routing. One other issue is that the LQI values available are specific for each chip manufacturer. Bob Hinden emphasized that this WG should not develop routing protocols as that the WG should coordinate with routing area. LOAD will not be a charter item now. (Note that profiling of MANET routing protocols for the use as mesh routing protocols *is* proposed as a charter item above.) Segment 6b. 10:40 - New Work - Collaboration with MANET, Chakeres Document(s): None. Conversation: Ian Chakeres talked about the possibilities of 6lowpan WG collaborating with the MANET WG. He believes that DYMO is the most applicable mesh protocol for 6lowpan, and the only thing needed for using it is to define a new packet format. Ian also requested feedback from 6lowpan on the drafts for DYMO and SMF. A question was raised whether the distinction between FFDs and RFDs are considered in MANET protocols. The answer was yes as nodes may only partially participate in MANET protocols. It was pointed out that the MANET protocols are not dependent on IP and thus they could be used both on top or below IP. Ian informed that MANET documents will be done this year. Ian encouraged the authors of the DYMO-LOW document to provide feedback on how DYMO applies to 6lowpan networks, so it becomes clear what is required and what is optional.